Buharry, I did not mean to be dismissive in my earlier piece. Unlike a lot
of people, I take my contributions here very seriously. I genuinely lacked
time initially to even read the whole of your piece, let alone give it the
response it deserves. As I mentioned earlier on and you alluded in your
piece, I do not have any animosity towards you or so called pacifists on
this List. The response I sent to your "badola" piece was the first time I
came out and attack you directly and I did so with facts. I have on many
occasions hailed the ideas of people who do not see eye to eye with us
regarding out method for the removal of Yaya. So that is not the issue here.
You came out with a "challenge" questioning our patriotism, commitment and
preparedness by inter alia saying: "In short, what do you have in place
apart from empty rhetoric?"
As you can see from your first piece, this does not call for a yes or no
answer. You were categorically saying that we do not have anything in place.
If we did, we should show you. Or would you have preferred for me to came to
you and lie because you cannot verify my assertions? We are not in that
business. We speak the truth not because we do not want to get caught but
because we desire and it is incumbent upon us to speak the truth. But in any
case, am glad that you retracted the essence of your first "challenge".
You also said: "Have I become different just because I posted something that
once differs from your point of view?".  The answer is no. You were always
different in my eyes; different in the sense that you do not espouse our
views about the mode of removing Yaya. So you and all the pacifists are
different from us. I think I already stated why I took exception to your
postings. It is not because you dislike violence per se. In one of the
earliest exchanges I had with Hamjatta, he made it known in no uncertain
terms that he did not share my views about violence. We had a healthy
exchange (May 8, 2000). I don't mind if people do not espouse our views and
say so. I will try to convince them if I want to or just leave them alone. I
will also try to put the record straight if someone steps in and say that we
are irresponsible and we are doing nothing but proffering empty rhetoric
that has the potential of killing Gambians. I would especially not sit down
and accept that criticism from someone who does not have a clue about what
we are doing apart from what he/she sees on Gambia_L. When I had attacked
people's proposal about peaceful means to get rid of Yaya, I did so with
solid points that none of the proponents of those ideas have come back to
refute. I did not talk about things I knew nothing about and had no means of
verifying (like you have no means of verifying what we are doing now and
have done in the past to get rid of Yaya). When I attacked the politics of
appeasement, sanctions and election victories, I do so concretely.
You also said: "Just a few weeks ago you wrote: "Buharry,Thank you very much
for your contributions". So now I have become "those people"? " I think I
have addressed part of this statement already. But I would tell you here
that even if you come up with good ideas and contributions in the future, I
would be the first person to applaud you. Pacifists are not my enemies. I
even go further than what most pacifists on this List do. Some of the
pacifists would not even engage in a debate with us and give us suggestions
because they do not want to be 'tainted' with our violence stance. I
contribute to all debates and also try to give suggestions as to how to put
more pressure on Yaya through constitutional means. Again, we advocate BY
ALL MEANS NECESSARY.
You Buharry said that: "There are endless varieties of pressures that can be
brought to bear. " I agree. Our camps are not mutually exclusive. But we can
only work together if we have mutual respect for each other. Let us attack
our positions (if need be) with solid points we can back up. If your piece
had stopped at saying that our position is bound to bring the Gambians more
misery because there is going to be a full blown war or we will take over
and visit more misery on the Gambian people, then I will just come back and
do like I did before in response to numerous subscribers and try to show you
why our plan will not spell misery for the Gambians. But you did not stop
there. Instead you sounded exactly like Tombong (April 26, 2000) and dared
us to go to Gambia and confront Yaya ourselves; insinuating that we do not
have concern for the Gambian people and we were only saying what we were
saying because we live abroad.
I do not think I need to say more about some of the 'pressures' you said
have been applied on Yaya and can be applied on him in the future. The
reason being, I have already addressed some of those issues in response to
other postings that mentioned that elections, civil disobedience, sanctions
or international condemnation of the Yaya was the way forward. But even if I
didn't talk about them, the situation back home speaks for itself. Elections
have been rigged before and they are currently being rigged. Even Bill
Clinton recognized that the mechanisms for a free and fair elections are not
in place. Students embarked on some civil disobedience and they are mowed
down by security forces. UK, U.S. and others impose sanctions and Yaya goes
to Taiwan, Libya, Liberia, Ghana and others to bankroll his regime. UK, U.S.
U.N. and others condemn Yaya and he's hailed as a hero and treated as such
by people from ECOWAS. So with some of your ideas we are not even dealing
with predicting the future. They have been tried and they did not work. Am
not saying that they should be discarded totally. Try them in tandem with
instilling fear in Yaya for his life.  If that element of fear is gone, more
peaceful approaches will have little or no chance of success.
You also said that: "However, I believe that the alternative you are
proposing has the potential to put them in a far worse position than what
you are rejecting." You are just addressing the predictions here because so
far the number of innocent lives Yaya killed (while we impose sanctions,
organize demonstrations and wait for elections) far outweighs the number of
lives lost in any attempt to bring Yaya's government through violent means.
So you do not have on your side, figures or facts about what is going to
happen. Take it from me that we are very professional and dedicated Gambians
who do not want to put the lives of innocent Gambians in jeopardy. If we are
not convinced that we can get rid of Yaya once and for all with a
devastating blow, we will not embark on our enterprise.
Sorry if I sound a little gibberish and keep jumping from point to point. Am
trying to respond to your piece in chronological order and trying to address
the several issues raised before I will be accused of being dictatorial and
snobbish and not wanting to respond to you.
You also said: "Excuse me, Sir! Egos? High horses? C'mon, man. Whose ego is
getting the best of whom here? Can you understand that some of us truly
believe in a non-violent solution to Gambia's problems? Is it strange to
you? Are you demanding that we see things exactly as you do? Isn't that a
bit too dictatorial on your part sir? I reverse your contention that I get
off my high horses back to you. I think you should come down to the ground
and join the rest of us who know that everyone is entitled to his or her
opinion." I was on your side until I realized that Yaya cannot be removed
through constitutional means. But I would still not discard those means. I
would however not give them the priority I will gives means that I think are
more workable. If you read my postings before, you will know that am far
from being some one who does not respect people with divergent views. Tell
me what positive contributions you gave to the people advocating violence to
get rid of Yaya. I would not have difficulties in pointing out how I
extended my hand to the other side to try other means of getting rid of
Yaya. So who is the intolerant one here?
You also said that: "The struggle is a multi-faceted enterprise." Darn right
it is.
You also said that: "For you to truly believe that South Africa got rid of
Apartheid ONLY because the ANC was bombing targets within South Africa is
truly amazing." Buharry, this was among the reasons I replied to your piece
because as I said before, most of the important issues your piece raised
have already addressed by people on this List. In your last quotation, I
detect some dishonesty (because I believe you are a bright man and did not
misinterpret what I said). I used that illustration to hammer home the point
the Nelson Mandela's advocacy  for the bombing of SA government
installations did not render him a savage or someone that did not respect
the rule of law or was indifferent to the plight of the black South
Africans. I made the same point months ago to Joe Sambou. So it is baffling
to say the least why you decided to interpret that point the way you did.
Everyone remotely familiar with the ANC struggle know that the Apartheid
regime was not brought down by the barrel of the gun alone.
You also challenged me to: "furnish us with the diplomatic and
constitutional means you tried so that they can be established to be
unworkable? ".  I think I already responded to that.
You also said: "You wrote: "I contribute more than you do in trying to make
sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." Power to you, my
brother. Who said that I contribute more than you do? This is not a
competition. I am sincerely glad to learn that "you are doing a lot to make
sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." That is what I also
want and to see that you have contributed to this cause truly makes me
happy. " You are right. No one is counting points here. The point I was
trying to make was that we are not just idly sitting in front of our
computers inciting Gambians to go and commit suicide. I was trying to show
you that I also espouse the practical constitutional means of putting
pressure on Yaya.
You also asked: "So you have a problem with people having a different
approach to a problem? You call Yaya a dictator. Why? Isn't it because he
too has a problem with people who have different approaches? ". I reiterate
that I have no problem with people having different views from us. And I
never said anything to suggest that. Tell me of a situation where I have
attacked someone's position without backing up my rhetoric. If I evinced a
dictatorial tone in the past in what I wrote, it was because I have a total
conviction in my posture and people I responded to never got back to refute
my point. I did not hold a gun at anyone's head and if they had returned
with a better point, I will happily accept it. I have sent numerous postings
in the past doggedly defending my arguments (ideas). Those are not the signs
of a dictator. If you doubt me, try debating Yaya on issues and disagreeing
with his position. I can assure you that he will not be on Gambia_L on a
daily basis trying to put his point across.
You also said: "Let's make a deal here. I believe that a bloodless coup can
be pulled off. Do you believe that one or more factors can interfere with
your "bloodless coup" and turn it into a disaster? Things can always go
wrong even in the most planned of events. " You are right that things can
always go wrong. In 1994 they did not go wrong. It is not our desire for
things to go wrong and we will do everything humanly possible to ensure that
innocent Gambian lives are not lost. However, life is full of risks. If
Washingtonians were fearful of being involved in drive-by shootings, they
would not venture their doorsteps to go to work in the morning. Yaya is
already wreaking havoc on our people and will continue to do so. Do you
suggest we leave him there or risk (remote risk) the lives of few Gambians
by attempting to remove him through force. I said remote risk because our
goal is to eliminate the risk of Gambians getting injured in the process.
But as in everything in life, we cannot give 100% guarantees.
You also responded to my colorful illustration by saying that: "The
situation by the way is not as acute as to leave the options you painted in
your scenario. There are still some options that can be explored." Fine,
let's just work on those options before we have another April 10 massacre,
another attempted assassination or kidnapping. If you are waiting for the
sanctions, I have news for you. They do not work. Bitter and comprehensive
sanctions (which we cannot bank on because of our strategic insignificance)
have been imposed on SA, Libya, Iraq to name a few. In areas where it
worked, the common man/woman suffered more than the fat cows running the
country and besides, it takes forever to make a dent. In the mean time, Yaya
is free to embark on his murderous spree. Sanctions have been imposed on
Yaya. Did that protect our children on April 10 and 11? Again, as I said,
Yaya has to fear for his life.
You also said: "I ask you where those people are going to get the arms. I
further ask you where they are going to get licences for those arms because
you surely wouldn't want them to face heavily armed security personnel with
stones, sticks etc.?". Of course I do not want them to be armed with sticks.
That is suicidal. It would also be silly of them to get arms and go to Yaya
to ask for the arms to be licensed. They will read in between the lines of
what I was trying to say. They showed some signs when they were ambushed.
Read into that.
You also said: "I would be more convinced, perhaps even converted if they
truly believed in what they are preaching and pack up and go back home to be
in the midst of the violence they are preaching. Apart from that I just say,
"Practise what you preach".  This is what I meant when you I you sounded
like Tombong. Again I apologize to readers for jumping all over the place,
but this is just an attempt to address all the issues and frankly I do not
have time to put my thoughts together. But I do not want to be accused of
disrespecting Buharry and other List members either. So bear with me.
Lastly, you said: "To cut a long story short, those who are advocating a
violent change in The Gambia need to come up with action plans. They need to
show us how they are going to bring about that change and if possible with
the least loss of life and suffering possible. To lack an action plan yet
instigate unarmed people to have violent confrontations with
armed-to-the-teeth security personnel is irresponsible to say the least
especially when one is sheltered some thousands of miles away. " This was in
your original piece and it is only brought back to illustrate that you were
not trying to illicit a yes or no answer. On the contrary, you were
questioning people's motives and commitment. If I do not call pacifists
closet Yaya supporters, I do not expect them to question my commitment to
the Gambian people this way.
I  sincerely apologize to subscribers that read to this stage for the length
of this posting. I wanted to let the matter rest once and for all because I
have more pressing things to address than trying to show that my colleagues
and I do not want to visit misery on the Gambian people. I will continue to
showcase the brutality of this regime, advocate for the use of force to get
rid of Yaya and work on plans that would be put in place upon the removal of
Yaya (BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY).
KB



>From: MOMODOU BUHARRY GASSAMA <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: A challenge to those advocating violent change in The Gambia
>            - Reply To Kebba Dampha
>Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:50:10 +0200
>
>Hi Kebba!
>                    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting.
>Before going further, I need to register the fact that out of respect not
>only for myself, the members of the L and you, I shall ignore the context
>in
>which you used some words. I shall also for the benefit of carrying out a
>healthy debate refuse to debate in a manner that would negatively impact on
>the serious and important topic that we are dealing with. Those things
>aside, please allow me to respond to some of the issues you raised. You
>wrote:
>
>"Buharry, are you really serious when you ask us to come to Gambia_L and
>tell the whole world how we are going to overthrow Yaya?"
>
>Where did I ask you to go into the mechanics of how you are going to remove
>Yaya? What I asked was whether you had anything apart from empty rhetoric
>to
>convince people to rally behind you. A simple yes would have sufficed
>because I am not in any position to check the veracity of your statements.
>You can tell me that you have 100 million Dollars stashed somewhere, piles
>of arms and ammunition piled somewhere and whatever you want or you can
>tell
>me that you have absolutely nothing. I would only have to take your word
>for
>it because I am not in any position to verify what you say. Like I wrote
>earlier, the beauty of the cyber identity is that one can be anyone or
>possess whatever one wants. I would not expect you to detail how you are
>going to overthrow Yaya on this very L where all kinds of government
>agencies are subscribed. That would not be too bright of me now. Would it?
>
>You also wrote:
>"Childish challenges will not also prompt us to go to Gambia unprepared.
>So,
>save yourself. We have nothing to prove to you or your likes."
>
>Like I stated in the beginning, I shall not respond to this in a way that
>would derail the debate or in a way that would display disrespect on my
>part. You have nothing to prove to my likes or me? Have I become different
>just because I posted something that once differs from your point of view?
>Just a few weeks ago you wrote: "Buharry,Thank you very much for your
>contributions". So now I have become "those people"? If you have nothing to
>prove to my likes and me why did you come to Gambia-L to propagate your
>cause? There are hundreds of my likes listed here. Why have you time and
>again solicited contributions from members to draw a program for your
>cause?
>Why did you get irate when the hundreds of my likes refused to contribute
>because of our conviction that violence isn't the only way to bring about
>change, that there are other methods that should be explored to the fullest
>but have not as yet been?
>
>You wrote:
>"What kind of pressure on Yaya are you talking about?"
>
>There are endless varieties of pressures that can be brought to bear. In
>"Peace through Sanctions?" Recommendations for German UN Policy, Manford
>Kulsessa and Dorethee Starck list the following types of sanctions most of
>which can in my opinion be effectively applied to The Gambia. The types of
>sanctions are:
>- Diplomacy where there is closure or a reduction of diplomatic missions,
>ban on entry of officials or exclusion from international organizations.
>- Transport where there is a ban on air, sea and suspension of rail and
>road
>traffic.
>- Communications where post and telecommunications are suspended.
>- Development co-operation where post and telecommunications are suspended.
>- Military where military co-operation is terminated and an arms embargo is
>instituted.
>- Finance where there is a ban on foreign assets and a ban on financial
>transfers.
>- Trade where embargos and boycotts are instituted.
>- Criminal justice where criminal proceedings are instituted against
>individuals in international tribunals.
>
>David Cortright and George A. Lopez point out in Carrots, Sticks and
>Co-operation: Economic Tools of Statescraft how the US maintained an "outer
>wall" of sanctions by among other things blocking Belgrade's membership in
>international organizations. In Nigeria under Abacha, the US banned all
>arms
>sales to the country and expanded its ban on US visas for the junta and its
>supporters. The EU imposed an arms embargo; travel restrictions and a
>sports
>boycott while the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group suspended it from
>membership. In the same book, the authors discussed how an Institute for
>International Economics study shows that of all the types of sanctions
>available, financial sanctions were the most effective. Measures such as
>"the freezing of foreign assets, the cancellation of debt rescheduling, the
>withholding of credits and loans, and restrictions on travel, commerce and
>communications" were shown to be very effective in bringing a regime to its
>knees especially when that state is weak. So you see Mr. Dampha, there are
>various types of pressure that can be brought to bear.
>
>You also wrote:
>"What would you do if he rigs the next elections?"
>The art of applying and maintaining pressure is to be both proactive and
>reactive. Proactive in that one has to have a hands-on approach and
>thoroughly analyse the situation and predict what the opponent is going to
>do. That way one can put measures into place to discourage him/her from
>doing it. Reactive in that one needs to quickly react when the feared
>situation arises preferably with contingency measures that were already
>designed. Pressure can therefore be brought against Yaya before the
>elections to ensure that the elections are fair and regulated and pressure
>can be brought if he rigs the elections. Remember the short travel advice
>of
>the British and the impact it had on the tourism sector?
>
>You further wrote:
>"Well we would rather not put the Gambians in that position in the first
>place."
>Wow! Thanks for your concern. However, I believe that the alternative you
>are proposing has the potential to put them in a far worse position than
>what you are rejecting.
>
>You also wrote:
>"So am being led to the conclusion that some of you people have been
>blinded
>by your
>egos. You perhaps had previously gone on record saying that you would never
>support violence. So because of that, things that should be glaring before
>your eyes would read something else to you. Get off your high horses and
>join the struggle."
>
>Excuse me, Sir! Egos? High horses? C'mon, man. Whose ego is getting the
>best
>of whom here? Can you understand that some of us truly believe in a
>non-violent solution to Gambia's problems? Is it strange to you? Are you
>demanding that we see things exactly as you do? Isn't that a bit too
>dictatorial on your part sir? I reverse your contention that I get off my
>high horses back to you. I think you should come down to the ground and
>join
>the rest of us who know that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
>That is the basis of democracy, the democracy you are planning to institute
>in The Gambia. Who told you that I am not in the struggle? Just because I
>do
>not propagate violence does not mean that I am not in the struggle. The
>struggle is a multi-faceted enterprise. Do you truly believe that I would
>stick to a position just for the sake of being afraid of changing it
>because
>people would see me in a different light? C'mon sir. I flatteringly like to
>think of myself as a dynamic, humble and willing-to-learn person. I have
>many a time even on this L changed my position because someone put in
>better
>arguments. Accepting the superiority of other ideas when they are is the
>essence of learning and I am a learner.
>
>You also wrote:
>"You should know about the struggles of ANC. Did Nelson Mandela, Oliver
>Thambo and the senior Mbeki just sit down and wait for nonexistent election
>victories or put all their faith in the hands of the international
>community? No. They bombed the South African government. "
>
>I know not only about the struggles of the ANC but that of South Africa.
>You
>see I like to consider myself to be a Pan-Africanist. I considered the ANC
>a
>sell out during my college days because of their approach. I was more
>impressed by the PAC's "one settler, one bullet" approach. I read so many
>books about the South African struggle. One of my best friends in college
>was the son of Malinga, one of the founders of the PAC who died in prison.
>I
>was very much against Mandela's concessionary stance when he became
>president but after analysing the situation, I was converted. I realised
>that Mandela's stance was more practical and was better for South Africa
>because another approach would have meant bloodshed and unwanton
>destruction. For you to truly believe that South Africa got rid of
>Apartheid
>ONLY because the ANC was bombing targets within South Africa is truly
>amazing. Do you underestimate the impact that sanctions had? External
>sanctions coupled with the civil resistance campaign of the UDF helped to
>bring about sweeping political transformation.
>
>You wrote:
>"Oliver Thambo was in exile running the ANC machinery.Did South Africans
>say
>that they were not going to listen to his calls for self-defense because he
>did not live in South Africa? Did they say that they were only going to
>listen to people like Desmond Tutu or sell-outs like Buthelezi? So my
>friend, it is not about where you live, it is about what you bring to the
>table."
>
>The ANC machinery was already in place before he went into exile. I believe
>that one can make a positive impact wherever one is. One can also make
>devastating prescriptions knowing fully well that one is sheltered from the
>repercussions. If you truly believe that you can make a positive
>contribution from wherever you are without jeopardising our country, power
>to you.
>
>You also wrote:
>"Not with our lives as you might have preferred. We tried diplomatic and
>constitutional means and they did not work."
>
>Mr. Dampha, let me state here that I am NOT your enemy. I would not want
>you
>to lose your life. You are a Gambian like all other Gambians and it is
>because of my concern for Gambians that I am concerned about the
>repercussions of the approach you preach. I do not want violence in my
>country because violence would lead to loss of lives and that is the last
>thing I want. Could you please furnish us with the diplomatic and
>constitutional means you tried so that they can be established to be
>unworkable?
>
>You wrote:
>"I contribute more than you do in trying to make sure that the culprits of
>the massacres face justice."
>
>Power to you, my brother. Who said that I contribute more than you do? This
>is not a competition. I am sincerely glad to learn that "you are doing a
>lot
>to make sure that the culprits of the massacres face justice." That is what
>I also want and to see that you have contributed to this cause truly makes
>me happy.
>
>You further wrote:
>"What we have a problem with is people that limit our options or give
>priority to options
>that are clearly unworkable."
>
>So you have a problem with people having a different approach to a problem?
>You call Yaya a dictator. Why? Isn't it because he too has a problem with
>people who have different approaches?
>
>You wrote:
>"Like I said yesterday (keep repeating myself. But I will gladly do so
>until
>it sinks into your heads)"
>
>Please, please do. Some of us, especially me, are not that clever. So you
>might definitely have to keep hammering home your point before it sinks. I
>was not blessed to be as clever as you.
>
>You wrote:
>"Why don't you want to believe that if a bloodless coup can be pulled in
>1994 another one can be pulled in 2000?"
>
>Let's make a deal here. I believe that a bloodless coup can be pulled off.
>Do you believe that one or more factors can interfere with your "bloodless
>coup" and turn it into a disaster? Things can always go wrong even in the
>most planned of events.
>
>You wrote:
>"If you were attacked by a wild animal today and you have a loaded gun in
>your hand, would you opt to extend your hand to it in the name of diplomacy
>or would you blow its brains out?"
>
>That depends. If it happens in a vacuum, that is, I am alone with the
>animal; I would gladly blow its brains out. However, as I said earlier,
>events you are prescribing won't happen in vacuum and there are a lot of
>people who might get hurt in the process. The situation by the way is not
>as
>acute as to leave the options you painted in your scenario. There are still
>some options that can be explored.
>
>You further wrote:
>"If your principles of non-violence are so dear to your heart that you do
>not want to join us, fine with us. But please do not demoralize our people
>back home by telling them that the ballot box is the only means Yaya can be
>removed from office."
>
>Why can't you believe that I also want the best thing to happen to The
>Gambia? We might have different prescriptions for solving our country's
>problems but that does not make us enemies. The solution to The Gambia's
>problems as mentioned earlier is multi-pronged and all on the various
>fences
>should not consider each other enemies. Where did I say that the ballot box
>is the only way of removing Yaya?
>
>You further wrote:
>". people like me have recently called upon the UDP supporters to arm
>themselves and not let their guard down during the coming campaign season.
>We are not calling upon you to leave your cozy existence in Europe to go
>fight in The Gambia neither are we calling upon your unarmed civilian
>brothers to go and confront Yaya."
>
>I ask you where those people are going to get the arms. I further ask you
>where they are going to get licences for those arms because you surely
>wouldn't want them to face heavily armed security personnel with stones,
>sticks etc.? The civilian UDP supporters you are calling upon to be armed
>and confrontational are my fellow Gambians and brothers and sisters. For
>your information, I am not living a cosy existence. I am hustling man, like
>most Gambians abroad.
>
>You also wrote:
>"What do you want us to tell the UDP? To lie down and let BaaBaa Jobe walk
>all over them? Or like some of your heroes, pretend that nothing
>undeserving
>happened to the UDP entourage? Or like others, pretend that this was not
>orchestrated by Yaya and his bunch of bandits? We would continue to
>advocate
>the removal of Yaya through violent means until pacifists like you come up
>with better means of removing him. If you are waiting for your heroes on
>the
>ground to advocate the removal of Yaya through violent means, then you will
>never see that and therefore you will never be a convert."
>
>No. No. No. Who is pretending that nothing happened to the UDP? Who is
>talking about letting Baba Jobe walk over the UDP? The very presence of the
>American and UK ambassadors in the area where the UDP entourage was held
>played a significant part in their release. Pressure, man, pressure. If
>pressure is strategically courted and applied, the results might amaze you.
>BTW, who are my heroes on the ground?
>
>You also wrote:
>"The way you help the situation, is to do like Colly, Saul , Matarr and
>others and expose Baabaa Jobe and Yaya for the cowards they are and urge
>UDP
>to be more vigilant."
>
>That is not the only way to help the situation. That is one of various ways
>to help and I say thanks to those mentioned for providing the information
>because it is really revealing. I am not saying that the UDP should not be
>vigilant. What I am saying is that the UDP should not send 10 hens to fight
>100 lions.
>
>You finally wrote:
>".send a silly petition to the international community."
>
>Thanks for sharing your views on how you see our petition. However, that
>petition, the demonstrations around the world, the action of people on the
>ground played an important part in bringing the events of April to the
>attention of the international community. There you see, pressure sir.
>Thanks and sorry for such a long posting.
>
>Buharry.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------